Animals and nirvana

[Dennis Mahar]

The one clear perception is the interconnectedness and complete dependence of all
things.
Becoming and being, past and future, reality and emptiness, subject and object, arising and ceasing are all real things, but only in relation to each other.
None exist absolutely.

Yeah, it sux to be that 'out of control' (:

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is true, desire for the non-existence of things is a more complex version of pain and discomfort, but it is the intensity of this desire that opens you up experientially to this truth.

The experience of being stands to pain, pleasure, comfort and discomfort like an airplane stands to rubber and metal.

It's not the desire for non-existence but the desire for existence (pain, joy, being etc) -- that is the crux of the topic. Only occasionally a state of desire to escape existence is encountered as some kind of reversal. For example the suicidal and severe depressions. But the desire for non-existence as you seem to use it here is more like some variation on escaping "this" while embracing "that". It's always two and then the confusion on all the interactions.

[Kunga]

Does it help to know that this existence of desires, [ suffering],is empty of inherent existence ?
At what point in this realization, do you never suffer from the effects of this temporary existence ?
There will always be suffering in this Desire Realm: [Humans & other Sentient beings]
It's up to those with compassion to help ease the suffering of others....not add to it.

Animals can be in "Nirvana" [if loved and cared for by someone selfless and compassionate], to do what they can to make their lives as comfortable as possible.


Nirvana [to extinguish], means to attain the "deathless" state.
The natural state of existing is not this temporary state of existence.

[Dennis Mahar]

You wouldn't have a spare 'desirable object' on the backburner or in the 'too hard basket' I can borrow Kunga?
I've run out of options.

[guest_of_logic]

compassion is worthwhile/useful

Worthwhile to a goal or end?

Of course: worthwhile to the goal of minimising suffering, and if you can't see the point in that, then guess what? I heard that a gang of bikies is making its way over to your place to break your kneecaps, cut off your eyelids and hang you over a hot fire for several days, and they've told me they'll cancel their plans if I have them over for a night at my place and cook them dinner (they're a reasonable bunch), but, you know, "I feel absolutely no need,want,desire, or reason to attempt lessening the suffering of" John, and I also believe that "Such an attempt is no doubt delusional, and useless", so... enjoy your little party.

guest_of_logic: scramble with your qualification that suddenly it's now only *one* type of dukkha to which you were referring (this is the first I've heard of that!), but even then you're on no better ground.

Diebert: You should read more carefully as I've been qualifying it in nearly every post.

Here is your original unqualified statement:

"I'm saying that it's also only in the human realm dukkha is experienced" (no mention of a particular type of dukkha; "dukkha" is unqualified)

You followed up with a statement where dukkha is qualified only by "homo" to emphasise your belief that it applies only to humans:

"No, I mean that with each and every instance of suffering you are able to show me, I'll show you the human, the homo dukkha involved"

You subsequently clarified that you weren't referring to "pain", but you clearly intended that such an exclusion was part of the definition of "dukkha", which it clearly is not.

You later went on to describe this understanding as "mainstream" Buddhist, which it clearly is not.

Again you are pitting me against Wikipedia!

Don't be manipulative. I'm pitting you against Buddhist understanding, as documented by Wikipedia. If you know of a better source of documentation, then by all means share it.

Are the bacteria suffering now too?

Who knows? It's very possible. But this is a distraction, you know that the quote is clearly intended to include animal life of the type under discussion, so quit trying to wriggle out of it.

More generally in Buddhism [re sentience], they're talking about conscious beings which might include certain animals

Man, you really don't know Buddhism very well at all on this topic. In Buddhism, animals are definitively considered to be sentient. There is nothing in the article you linked to ("Sentient beings (Buddhism)") that suggests otherwise, and you might be further aided by this quote from the article Animals in Buddhism:

"Animals have always been regarded in Buddhist thought as sentient beings, different in their intellectual ability than humans but no less capable of feeling suffering".

[Kunga]

Here's another good article on animals /sentient beings :

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/170.htm


Dennis...can you re-phrase what you wrote ? I'm having a hard time understanding it.
If you are asking whether or not I still have desires, of course I do !
I still have hard problems in the basket too.

You've run out of options ?
What are you saying ?
All we have is desires and problems to solve ?
Yes, I agree....

[Dennis Mahar]

All we have is desires and problems to solve ?
Yes, I agree....

That's what they're talkin' about.
Winning formulas.

[Kunga]

Well, what's your "Wining Formula " ?
It better not be "empty and meaningless" either !

You have to have a formula to go with the condition.
It's not a "one size fits all" thing.

Not everyone is at the same place at the same time.
Although there is "Ultimate Reality" [Emptiness]
And also "Relative Reality" [form]

They are one and the same...
but knowing how to "juggle" it is what counts.

To not do what's correct in circumstances,
Intensions are everything.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Laird, way to completely avoid and ignore the main point of the post again... the whole main part about you imposing inherent-quality and all. Mind addressing that, there were even some questions there.

We were talking about efforts to minimise the suffering of the countless beings and animals, not about taking the logical choice of not pushing grandmas down the stairs and helping someone if such a situation arises or they ask. You are asserting something completely different, you are talking about running around in a vain attempt to actually lessen the suffering of all the forest animals. 'Being kind to those around you' vs 'If we try real hard we can lessen the suffering richter scale from 80trillion to 79.999 trillion'.

I'll post the previous comments here so you don't forget to address the points you avoided, again.

"I'm sure you get what it means that nothing has inherent-quality or meaning. That you are creating distinctions and imposing meaning upon things/events.

You get that right? It's not hard to grasp, it's undeniable, it's obvious.

Effectively you are imposing personal distinctions, saying others should abide by these views you have forced upon appearances. (Clearly such views are not universal but are supported by certain people)"

[Dennis Mahar]

Well, what's your "Wining Formula " ?
It better not be "empty and meaningless" either !

You have to have a formula to go with the condition.
It's not a "one size fits all" thing.

Not everyone is at the same place at the same time.
Although there is "Ultimate Reality" [Emptiness]
And also "Relative Reality" [form]

They are one and the same...
but knowing how to "juggle" it is what counts.

To not do what's correct in circumstances,
Intensions are everything.

The underlying fabric of existence is Joy.

what problem?

[Kunga]

The underlying fabric of existence is Joy.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el006.html

[Dennis Mahar]

who can make the sun rise

[Kunga]

who can make the sun rise

What is that suppose to mean ?

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker ?




"How many qualities are there, Lord, issuing in Buddhahood?"

"There are, Saariputta, ten qualities issuing in Buddhahood. What are the ten? Giving, Saariputta, is a quality issuing in Buddhahood. Virtue, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, and equanimity are qualities issuing in Buddhahood."[2]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el409.html

[Leyla Shen]

No, Diebert. You're wrong:

It's not the desire for non-existence but the desire for existence (pain, joy, being etc) -- that is the crux of the topic. Only occasionally a state of desire to escape existence is encountered as some kind of reversal. For example the suicidal and severe depressions.

The desire for the existence or non-existence of things is fundamental to sentience and thus to any "state of desire" for self existence or non-existence.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You subsequently clarified that you weren't referring to "pain", but you clearly intended that such an exclusion was part of the definition of "dukkha", which it clearly is not.

Nonsense! I qualified it as not being the "plain pain" definition several times and also mentioned "as the Buddha described", meaning the first "noble truth" which is like "birth is suffering". Simply taken "as is" this means you'd have to stop things being born if you want to do anything about this. Good luck! Don't be stupid.

You later went on to describe this understanding as "mainstream" Buddhist, which it clearly is not.

Yes, there's no "mainstream" as such but any trained Buddhist will focus on the most subtle and powerful understanding of the term. Taking away pain is not it.

Are the bacteria suffering now too?

Who knows? It's very possible. But this is a distraction, you know that the quote is clearly intended to include animal life of the type under discussion, so quit trying to wriggle out of it.

That's because you bring in a quote from Tibetan Buddhism and your interpretation of it as some valid understanding we all have to bow for. But you hide it as an external authority.

If you are saying that "all forms of life" means suddenly specific selected animals, are bets are off and you are getting dishonest in your argument. My position is that you misunderstand the notion of "form" in Buddhist terms.

Man, you really don't know Buddhism very well at all on this topic. In Buddhism, animals are definitively considered to be sentient. There is nothing in the article you linked to ("Sentient beings (Buddhism)") that suggests otherwise, and you might be further aided by this quote from the article Animals in Buddhism:

"Animals have always been regarded in Buddhist thought as sentient beings, different in their intellectual ability than humans but no less capable of feeling suffering".

I showed you the article on the Buddhist notion of "sentient being" and what it means: conscious being, the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas, etc. This includes "mental formations".

Sad to see you manipulate and pretend on the issue. The only way out in your reasoning is to go Tibetan and invoke consciousness in every living cell and tiny molecule size thoughts in every thing. It's not that I'm opposed to that view, I just don't see it representing Buddhism as you like to present it as to save face. And I'm not even on the Buddhist wheel in terms of supporting much of it. But as reference it's useful if at least all parties in the discussions have a basic understanding of the terms.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The desire for the existence or non-existence of things is fundamental to sentience and thus to any "state of desire" for self existence or non-existence.

Ho-ho-ho. Not so fast. This was about your statement that "all-pervasive" suffering (sankhara-dukkha) is the more complex, human sense of ordinary suffering like physical pain. My reply to Pam was that the "craving to be" and not just sense-craving or "craving not to be" was crucial for understanding and experiencing this deepest, most subtle form of suffering aka "dukkha of conditioned states": the topic at hand.

It's a given in Buddhism that all three forms of craving relate to the various descriptions of suffering. That in itself does not effect my statement at all.

[Kunga]

Sad to see you manipulate and pretend on the issue. The only way out in your reasoning is to go Tibetan and invoke consciousness in every living cell and tiny molecule

Diebert,

All schools of Buddhism recognize that sentient being, is in all life forms...no matter how small.
Also, there are no sentient beings :)

Laird is not being manipulative or pretending either.
These words are being used by you to manipulate him, pretending you know better.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

All schools of Buddhism recognize that sentient being, is in all life forms...no matter how small.

Research the topic a bit further¹ and more in depth, that's all I can advice. Although there are various interpretations around, a sentient being is generally described as a conscious being. And humans -- not the whole animal kingdom -- are seen as these somewhat conscious beings and as such the objects of the various teachings, the ones the teachings are addressing. If someone wants to make the argument that certain animals do qualify for having some degree of spiritual or intellectual notions or suffer from illusions on life then I'm not fundamentally opposed to attribute the full meaning of suffering in Buddhist sense to them. But that case has not been made yet.

Now someone could see consciousness as a "field", encompassing all living things and think of it as one "being" but that's in my view changing all the premises of the discussion which started with making distinctions between human realms, animal kingdom, wild animals, etc. One cannot change half way all definitions although I know it might be tempting for some.

Finally I want to stress that Buddhism is not concerned with what's out there apart from the act of compassion, which is treating the other being (likeness) as if it's your own: knowing that what you are experiencing is your own living experience, including any "forms of life". It's the philosophical outlook.



¹) what's wrong with the Encyclopedia of Buddhism as cited in the Wiki article on it: "Sentient beings is a term used to designate the totality of living, conscious beings that constitute the object and audience of Buddhist teaching. Translating various Sanskrit terms (jantu, bahu jana, jagat, sattva), sentient beings conventionally refers to the mass of living things subject to illusion, suffering, and rebirth (Saṃsāra). Less frequently, sentient beings as a class broadly encompasses all beings possessing consciousness, including Buddhas and Bodhisattvas".

[Dennis Mahar]

When a human being is liberated all beings are liberated from suffering from that human being.
It ain't rocket science or postmodern linguistic obfuscation.

It's not the case of not doing harm as a responsibility which would constitute a sense of guilt for any inadvertant infraction of the rule.
It's not at the level of 'doing'.

It's at the level of Being,
not responsible as in 'forced upon' like a Citizen is 'forced upon' to obey the rules of Culture.

Response-able,
where the 'private soliloquoy' is radically transformed to care about the well being of others in order to care about the well being of one's own being.

One is suddenly isolated from everything and floating free and is able to imagine a response that is authentically one's own.


Listening to the opinions of others for information to form an opinion in order to have an opinion that's going to look cool when you hang out with the really cool kids, in the hope of getting an upgrade in social status.
That's not it, forget it.

[Kunga]

Research the topic a bit further¹ and more in depth, that's all I can advice. Although there are various interpretations around, a sentient being is generally described as a conscious being. And humans -- not the whole animal kingdom -- are seen as these somewhat conscious beings and as such the objects of the various teachings, the ones the teachings are addressing.

Yes...it can be confusing I agree...especially when it comes to viruses and parasites....but Buddha was big on the smallest details, and when in doubt...I go to the earliest [Suttas], original teachings for reference.....of course we are at the mercy of the translations....but after many years of having faith in Buddhsim, your intuition develops on certain things. The Theravada are the most conservative of schools [between the Mahayana & Vajrayana], that's why I frequently refer here to the Pali texts interpretation. I am not biased towards any of the branches of Buddhism...as I have studied them all and embrace them all.

Anyways....this Sutta says it all :

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .amar.html

[Kunga]

As I sit here...my bare feet cold...a kitten is sitting on them to keep them warm !!!!
Does this kitten have a kind heart to sit on a humans cold feet ?
Why would it even do that ?
Amazing....

[guest_of_logic]

Laird, way to completely avoid and ignore the main point of the post again... the whole main part about you imposing inherent-quality and all. Mind addressing that, there were even some questions there.

John. I ignored that part of your post because, in my eyes, it's escapist fantasy. Suffering is referred to as such because of its qualities. I don't care whether you refer to such qualities as "inherent" or "non-inherent", because they are there by definition: undesirable; to be avoided. As such, your distinction between inherency and non-inherency means nothing to me: the only relevant feature of suffering is that it is (by definition) undesirable. It is fantasy to imagine otherwise. If I set your head on fire, you would wish for the fire to be extinguished, regardless of whether the fire and pain were "inherent" or "non-inherent". When the heads of others (human *or* animals, literally *or* figuratively) are set on fire, they have the same wish, inherency or non-inherency notwithstanding. Am I making sense to you?

We were talking about efforts to minimise the suffering of the countless beings and animals, not about taking the logical choice of not pushing grandmas down the stairs and helping someone if such a situation arises or they ask. You are asserting something completely different, you are talking about running around in a vain attempt to actually lessen the suffering of all the forest animals. 'Being kind to those around you' vs 'If we try real hard we can lessen the suffering richter scale from 80trillion to 79.999 trillion'.

Actually, I was talking about efforts to eliminate *unnecessary* suffering: that which is caused solely by our (human) choices. I recognise that (at present) avoiding the suffering of wild animals is a challenge that we are not ready for, but there is much human-caused animal suffering that we can *easily* avoid through our consumption choices. I am thinking in particular of, as I mentioned in an earlier post, dietary choices (to eat as a fruitarian), and similar choices around not buying leather, wool, and similar products of exploitation. Do you at least recognise that your choice of what to eat or wear can save lives? And do you further recognise that such choices can be compassionate?

I showed you the article on the Buddhist notion of "sentient being" and what it means: conscious being, the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas, etc. This includes "mental formations".

I'm cutting to the chase and picking the most relevant of your quotes, for efficiency if nothing else. I hope you understand my focus.

In any case, this information that you refer to could only cinch your case if (1) the position that the five skandhas are synonymous with sentience was the majority consensus in Buddhism, and, (2) the five skandhas were specifically associated solely with humans and *not* with animals.

I will not in this post challenge #1 (although it is possible), but I will certainly challenge #2. For a start, let us simply consider the five skandas (from their Wikipedia article) without reference to Buddhist doctrine, and as objective observers, and analyse whether or not these skandhas are solely human traits or whether they could apply to animals too:

1. "form" or "matter". Are animals associated with form and matter? Certainly, they are.

2. "sensation" or "feeling". Do animals perceive sensation or feeling? Of course they do.

3. "perception", "conception", "apperception", "cognition", or "discrimination". Does this apply to animals? Sure, it does.

4. "mental formations", "impulses", "volition", or "compositional factors". Do animals experience "mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object"? Who could deny that they do?

5. "consciousness" or "discernment". Whilst this is the most controversial element, it seems to me, and it seems to be the case that mainstream Buddhism holds that, animals *are* conscious and discerning, at the very least in the three senses outlined in that Wikipedia article: that they are "cognisant" and "discerning", that they participate in "a series of rapidly changing interconnected discrete acts of cognizance", and that they participate in a "base that supports all experience".

So much for our personal analysis, how about Buddhist doctrine? Here are a couple of sources that validate our analysis:

1. THE FIVE SKANDHAS AND THE TWELVE LINKS OF DEPENDENT ORIGINATION (note: this document is by a temple (the Dieu Phap Temple) associated not with the Tibetan tradition, but with the Mahayana tradition (search for it here if you want to confirm what I say)). Notice in particular this quote: "Actually, all sentient beings have the five aggregates". Notice that? *All* sentient beings, not just humans.

2. The 5 skandhas by Lama Tendar Olaf Hoeyer. Sure, Lamas are part of the Tibetan tradition but that's not to say that this viewpoint is associated with Tibetan Buddhism alone; as Kunga notes, it is interdenominational. Notice in particular this quote: "All sentient beings function in this way" i.e. not just humans, but animals and insects too.

You will notice also, if you research enough, that at times the five skandhas are said to apply not merely to human experience, and not merely to animal experience, but to *experience itself*. In other words, the skandas are fundamental to *everything*. I wonder whether you will be willing to recognise this Buddhist perspective.

Finally, if you are to honestly research the question of animals and sentience in Buddhism, I am convinced that it is impossible to come away from that research with any view other than that Buddhism holds that animals (including insects) are sentient. Seriously, I challenge you to come up with even one reputable link that denies this. Try your best. I have already referenced Wikipedia's view of animal sentience in Buddhism, and it is 100% aligned with what I just said.

Kunga, thank God for your open heart, and for your compassionate approach, and for your (far greater than mine) knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures.

[guest_of_logic]

One other question for your consideration, Diebert: if *only* humans are sentient, then why would Buddhism even have a term "sentient beings"? Wouldn't that term simply reduce to "humans"? What would be the point of the term, "sentient beings", if really, all it meant was, "humans"?

[Russell Parr]

I don't know much of anything about buddhism, but going by the wiki link Diebert posts, the first two sentences read:

Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself. Specifically, it denotes the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas.

The first sentence notes that "in some contexts", sentience can be applied to all life in general. But the second sentence points out the presence of the skandhas. Follow that link and the first sentence you read is

In Buddhist phenomenology and soteriology, the skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi), aggregates in English, are the five functions or aspects that constitute the human being.

Looks to me like it's more about humans than anything.

Besides, why is there such a desire to equate humans with the rest of the animal kingdom? I don't see kunga's adorable feet warmer posting about it's own interpretations of suffering and Enlightenment.

[guest_of_logic]

So then why doesn't it say exactly that, Russell? "Sentience is reserved for the human species". But it doesn't. Follow the links I offered in my previous post that demonstrate that the skanhdas are not purely human phenomenon. Wikipedia might mention only humans, but this is not to limit the skandhas to humans, only to indicate that humans are of the most relevance (since it is humans who will read the article).